Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-06 11:04:51

Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Hi there,
> now that the 1.33.1 release is out, I'd like to bring up again a topic that
> was discussed (or at least, touched) previously.
> I see two issues with the current release numbering scheme:
> 1) What is currently the major version number appears to have lost all its
> meaning. Why isn't it dropped, making the next release '34' instead of '1.34' ?
> 2) As was previously stated here, there is no attempt to make versions x.y.z
> and x.y.(z+1) binary compatible. From a user's perspective there is therefor
> no difference between version y.(z+1) and (y+1), neither in terms of features,
> nor in terms of time between releases.
> I therefor suggest to drop the last component, too. Releases therefor become
> simply a simple sequence 34, 35, ...
> This obviously doensn't have any impact on any branching policies, or release
> planning. It only affects the user's perception of releases and how they relate
> to each other.
> Comments ?

I'm all for dropping the leading 1.

I do think the 2nd number should be retained to reflect the branch.
There's always a chance we'll release (1.)34.0 and later find we want
to release (1.)33.2

Calling that release 35 would be confusing at best.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at